I firmly believe that the…

I firmly believe that the proposed requirement for municipalities to seek provincial approval for bike lanes is absurd for the following reasons:

Favouring vehicle lanes over other modes of transportation leaves some people with little or no transportation at all - kids, young teenagers, newcomers to Canada (who don't have licenses yet), people who can't afford cars/gas, and anyone who has medical issues which makes them unable to drive are NOT able to drive, however in many cases they are able to bike. It is closed-minded and ableist to only cater to middle-aged people with enough income to be able to drive.

Vehicle lanes should NOT be the priority - Active modes (cycling, skateboards, scooters, walking, etc) should be the priority as it keeps people healthy and reduces the risk of fatal or major injury collisions.
Bike lanes improve safety for those who need/choose to bike - without bike lanes, cyclists are at higher risk in the general traffic lanes.

Bike lanes improve safety for pedestrians - Although my grandparents (nearing their 90s) are unable to bike, they do like to walk to stay healthy. Bike lanes provide a safe buffer between vehicle lanes and the sidewalk, which improves safety and comfort for anyone walking (children, seniors, and everyone else).

Bike lanes improve safety for motorists - Many areas (especially smaller towns) have excessive amounts of road space.. It's a proven fact that as lanes/roads get wider, traffic speeds increase. Where there is excessive space on the road (ie: where mistakes were made in past designs), the road space should be reduced to calm driving behaviours. This improves safety for all users, including motorists. While some roads may be busy during peak hours, many roads are excessively wide for the midday, evening and overnight conditions.

There is (and will continue to be) an increase in other active modes, which can be accommodated in bike lanes - Scooters, skateboards, etc, are used in bike lanes. By limiting the number of bike lanes, the province would also be indirectly forcing these users to either be on the road or on sidewalks (most likely they would choose sidewalks, which increases the risks to pedestrians).

The policy would overstep boundaries - It is absolutely unnecessary to make it harder for municipalities to meet their goals (such as the goals set out in Ottawa's Road Safety Action Plan). Many of the larger municipalities already have frameworks for decision making, including multi-modal Level of Service guidelines. There are already frameworks in place for making informed, well-thought out decisions at the municipal level, so why would the province feel a need to overrule these existing policies?

The decision makers would have little to no knowledge on the local context - The policy seems to be written specifically for the GTA, not for other regions of the province. I don't see why someone in Toronto should be making decisions about what is best for the transportation systems in Thunder Bay, North Bay, Sudbury, Carleton Place, etc. There are many factors to consider when making these high-level decisions, and it seems like an awful idea to have some bureaucrat in the GTA decide what is best for other municipalities that they may have never even stepped foot in.

The policy would be costly - Taxpayers are already paying for engineering studies, etc at the municipal level. These employees already exist. Why should we also be paying for someone at the provincial level (living in the GTA) to review the same engineering studies that municipal engineers are already reviewing?

The policy would impact the economy - It seems that the current premier is obsessed with boosting the economy, but adding barriers to construction would slow or halt many municipal construction projects. In Ottawa's 2024 Budget (just one year), several million dollars were allocated directly to Cycling Facilities. If the province were to disallow safety improvements such as these, that would be millions of dollars of lost opportunity for the engineering/design and construction industries. It's a step backwards to put barriers to constructing safety improvements.

Moving bike lanes to side streets is not the answer - There are several reasons for this (many destinations are on the main streets, often main streets are the more direct/less complicated path, often main street are longer than side streets, often these side streets do not have traffic signals when they cross main roads, etc).

Some cyclists will just move the general traffic lanes if there aren't bike lanes - I can't see why the premier/minister would think that it's a bad idea to have safe facilities for cyclists, rather than have them in the general traffic lane. If I were cycling and my choices were the general traffic lanes of the main street or a circuitous route along a side street, I would choose the general traffic lane.

Other cyclists will choose to drive instead of biking/skateboarding/scootering - Bike lanes are added to streets to help offer an alternative to driving. In some cases, if a cyclist chooses to bike to their destination, that's one less car on the road. Reducing the number of bike lanes (or making them inconveniently located on side streets), would increase the number of cars, which would increase congestion. I understand that the purpose of this regulation is to decrease congestion, but it would actually have the opposite effect

The policy would be regressive and would put Ontario on the map for being a car-dependant bureaucracy rather than being progressive and forward-thinking - Many jurisdictions are working on their vision zero policies and aiming to make transportation more equitable, accessible and safer. This policy would be entirely backwards. We should be making things better, not worse.

I could probably name several other issues with the proposed policy, but to keep this message concise, I will stop at that. To summarize, the policy would be written to positively impact no one, but would negatively impact all road users due to decreased safety, and potential increased congestion. The policy would be inequitable since it impacts children, young teenagers, newcomers, people with disabilities, etc more negatively than it would impact financially-stable car owners. The proposed policy is regressive and creates barriers which would impact the construction industry. I can't see a single beneficial component of this policy and I strongly believe that it is being proposed with only the GTA in mind.

I urge you to please consider the numerous points I've outlined above and to cancel this bill, for the wellbeing on Ontarians.